FIRST SECTION

Application no. 35834/11 Rashid Mirajdar Oglu MANSUROV against Azerbaijan and 7 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix).

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those of the case of Aslan Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 20411/11, communicated on 30 August 2013). They may be briefly summarised as follows.

The applicants were either self-nominated or nominated by various opposition-oriented political parties to stand as candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 and applied for registration as candidates in various single-mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix).

According to official election results, each applicant lost the election in his or her respective constituency.

On or after election day , e ach applicant lodged a complaint either directly with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) , or first with the respective Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC ”) and subsequently with the CEC after the respective ConEC dismissed their complaints. They complained about various irregularities and breaches of electoral law that had taken place in various polling stations in their respective electoral constituencies before or during election day , and sought invalidation of the election results in their respective constituencies owing to those irregularities. In particular, they complained of various instances of all or some of the following irregularities: “carousel” voting, ballot-stuffing, obstruction and/or intimidation of their observers and representatives in polling stations, campaigning by members of polling station commissions (PECs) in favour of pro-Government candidates, interference in the voting process by local public officials, breach of procedures for inking voters ’ fingers, voting by people not registered as voters in the constituency, multiple voting by same individuals, breach of vote counting procedures, false reporting of inflated voter turnout figures in PEC results records, inconsistencies in election results recorded in the PEC results records submitted to the ConEC and those recorded in copies of the same records given to the candidates, and so on.

In support of their complaints, each applicant submitted a number of affidavits signed by their observers and representatives in various polling stations, and in some cases a number of other documents, video recordings and photographs documenting the alleged irregularities.

On various dates (see Appendix), the relevant ConECs and the CEC dismissed the applicants ’ complaints in full or in part, as unsubstantiated. The applicants ’ participation in the examination of their complaints by the commissions was not ensured.

The applicants lodged appeals against the respective CEC decisions with the Baku Court of Appeal, reiterating their complaints about the election irregularities, further complaining that the examination of their complaints by the CEC had been ineffective, and requesting the court to quash the respective CEC decision and to invalidate the election results in their respective constituencies.

In the meantime, on 22 November 2010 the CEC issued a final record on the general election results, confirming the final results of elections in all constituencies. In accordance with electoral law, this results record was sent to the Constitutional Court for approval.

On various dates (see Appendix), the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ appeals in all cases, largely copying the reasoning of the respective CEC decisions.

The applicants lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court, reiterating their complaints made before the electoral commissio ns and the Baku Court of Appeal, and arguing that the examination of their complaints and appeals by the commissions and by the Baku Court of Appeal had been ineffective.

In the meantime, on 29 November 2010 the Plenum of the Constitutional Court examined the CEC ’ s final results record of 22 November 2010 and approved the election results in all constituencies. This decision was final and entered into force immediately.

On various dates (see Appendix), but in each case after 29 November 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants ’ appeals, largely reiterating the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant s complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that there had been a number breaches of the elect oral law and other irregularities before and during election day, which had infringed their right to stand as a candidate in free elections, and that the domestic authorities, including the elect oral commissions and courts, had failed to duly and effectively examine their complaints and to investigate such irregularities.

2. Relying on either Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention or Article 13 of the Convention, or both, t he applicants in applications nos. 35834/11, 37554/11 and 37866/11 complain that they were deprived of their right to an effective remedy before the Supreme Court because the Constitutional Court had approved the country-wide election results despite the fact that their individual appeals, challenging the election results in their respective constituencies and lodged within the time-limits specified by law, were still pending before the Supreme Court.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 37554 /11 and 37866/11 complain under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that, owing to the current method of composition of electoral commissions at all levels, the electoral commissions were not independent and impartial and, as a result, all their decisions heavily favoured the pro-Government candidates.

4. The applicants in applications nos. 37554 /11 and 37866/11 also complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above complaints, that candidates nominated by opposition parties, like themselves, were discriminated against, by various means, by all State executive authorities, electoral commissions, courts and Government-controlled media throughout the entire electoral process.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Has there been a breach of the applicants ’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to participate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? Did the process of examination by the domestic authorities of the applicants ’ complaints offer sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness? Did such examination comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? Moreover, given that the Constitutional Court had approved the results of elections while the applicants ’ individual appeals before the Supreme Court were pending, was the applicants ’ right to challenge the election results before the Supreme Court, as a final remedy guaranteed by domestic electoral law, effective in practice?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy before the electoral commissions and domestic courts (and, in particular, the Supreme Court) for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. Applications nos. 37554 /11 ( Ilham Huseynli ) and 37866/11 ( Kerimli ): What were the rules of composition of electoral commissions for the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010? Were they compatible with the principles enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? Did the method of composition of electoral commissions affect the applicants ’ rights under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention?

2. Applications nos. 37554 /11 ( Ilham Huseynli ) and 37866/11 ( Kerimli ) : Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of their political affiliation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1?

3. Application no. 35834/11 ( Mansurov ): The parties are requested to submit a copy of the ConEC decision of 11 November 2010, as well as all related documents.

4. Application no. 37661/11 ( Mustafayeva ): The parties are requested to submit a copy of the CEC decision of 20 November 2010, as well as all related documents.

5. Application no. 37866/11 ( Kerimli ): The applicant is requested to complete/update his personal information (in particular, his date of birth).

6. Application no. 38636/11 ( Sadigov ): The parties are requested to submit a copy of the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 1 December 2010.

7. Application no. 38885/11 ( Zeynalova ): The parties are requested to submit a copy of the ConEC decision concerning the applicant ’ s complaint about the alleged irregularities during the election day .

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Electoral constituency and the nominating body

ConEC decision(s)

CEC decision

Domestic courts ’ decisions

35834/11

17/05/2011

Rashid MANSUROV

1975Baku

Emin ASLANOV

Nasimi Second Electoral Constituency No. 22, nominated by the Karabakh Election Bloc

11/11/2010

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 25/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

37554/11

20/05/2011

Ilham HUSEYNLI

1965Baku

Hafiz HASANOV

Binagadi Second Electoral Constituency No. 10, nominated by the coalition of the Popular Front Party (PFPA) and Müsavat Party (PFPA- Müsavat coalition)

15/11/2010

19/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 23/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

37656/11

01/06/2011

Yagub BABALI

1961Agsu

Intigam ALIYEV

Agsu-Ismayilli Electoral Constituency No. 87, nominated by the “Classic” Popular Front Party (Classic PFPA)

15/11/2010

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 25/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 02 / 12 /2010

37661/11

27/05/2011

Leyla MUSTAFAYEVA

1983Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Gazakh Electoral Constituency No. 107, self-nominated

According to the applicant, complaint not accepted and not examined by ConEC

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

37740/11

03/06/2011

Soltanhamid MALIKOV

1957Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Neftchala Electoral Constituency No. 61, self-nominated

11/11/2010

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 26/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 03 / 12 /2010

37866/11

26/05/2011

Ali KERIMLI

- Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Surakhany Secon Electoral Constituency No. 31, nominated by the PFPA- Müsavat coalition

According to the applicant, complaint not examined by ConEC

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 25/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

38636/11

31/05/2011

Giyas SADIGOV

1960Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Sabirabad First Electoral Constituency No. 63, nominated by the Classic PFPA

N/A

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

38885/11

07/06/2011

Sitara ZEYNALOVA

1959Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Khatai Fourth Electoral Constituency No. 36, self-nominated

According to the applicant, ConEC decision was not made available to her

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 07 / 12 /2010